ELR Citation: ELR 20120
No(s). 91-6072 (2d Cir. Oct 24, 1991)

The court holds that the impact of a redesigned interstate-highway interchange on regional traffic patterns, considered alone or in conjunction with other intervening developments, has been adequately reviewed and requires no new or supplemental environmental impact analyses. Over several decades, the federal government, New York, and New Jersey planned and partially constructed a superhighway route, connecting points in New Jersey and New England, that bypasses the New York metropolitan area by diverting traffic toward the Tappan Zee Bridge. The last portion of this route to be completed is a 20.7-mile stretch of I-287, which was subject to intensive environmental review and litigation. After improvements to the interchange at issue were considered and concluded in 1982, the New York Department of Transportation (NYDOT) proposed additional modifications to the interchange in 1988 designed to enhance safety and improve the traffic capacity of the interchange. The new plan was evaluated in several reports by the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) and the NYDOT, and an environmental assessment (EA) was completed by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), the FHwA, and the NYDOT. The EA responded to plaintiffs' contentions but found no need for a new environmental impact study (EIS) or a supplemental EIS (SEIS). Plaintiffs, various villages, a coalition of residents and individuals, brought an action against the USDOT, the FHwA, and the NYDOT alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, §4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, and New York's State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). This appeal was brought after the district court upheld defendants' decision not to prepare a separate EIS or an SEIS.

The court first holds that there is no basis for an independent EIS for the interchange, since the interchange and the overall project are "connected" for EIS purposes. The interchange project would not be undertaken but for the overall I-287 project. The court next holds that the proposed significant modifications to the interchange will not make a substantial change relevant to the environmental concerns involved, thus making an SEIS unnecessary. The evidence shows that the defendants took the necessary "hard look" at the possible effects of the proposed action. Defendants' final EA provided that the interchange, as modified, continues to connect I-287 to the rest of the project as approved in 1982; the basic number of lanes is the same; travel times and distances through the interchange are only minimally enhanced; and the design improves safety and enhances the quality of traffic flow in comparison with the 1982 design. That defendants subsequently concluded that no impact was likely was not arbitrary or capricious.

The court next holds that the defendants were justified in not explicitly addressing the essentially independent and unrelated developments on the possible future addition of a span to the Tappan Zee Bridge when they concluded no SEIS was necessary. The court finds that plans for a second bridge span are speculative and contingent, and that any construction of a new bridge would be preceded by project development studies that include consideration of environmental issues. The mere mention in the draft EA that proposals exist in the 1987 Tappan Zee Corridor Study for a second span of the Tappan Zee Bridge is not dispositive. It would be impracticable to coordinate consideration of the interchange project, and other similarly limited proposals for improvements, with the massive studies required for a future second-bridge project. Moreover, evidence shows that volume along the entire Tappan Zee Corridor has and will continue to increase for the foreseeable future, whether or not the redesigned interchange is constructed.

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Stephen L. Gordon, Sy Gruza, Thomas E. Stagg
Beveridge & Diamond
101 Park Ave., Ste. 1202, New York NY 10178
(212) 557-3355

Counsel for Defendants-Appellees
Otto G. Obermaier, U.S. Attorney; Katherine A. Stanton, Ass't U.S. Attorney
1 St. Andrews Plaza, New York NY 10007
(212) 791-0053

Robert Abrams, Attorney General; Alexandra York, Ass't Attorney General
State Capitol, Albany NY 12224
(518) 474-2121

Before Cardamone & Miner, JJ.